Лимиты карты

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the behavioral burden is largely carried. The description adds no contradiction and provides extra context about what data is shown, but it does not disclose other behavioral details such as freshness or authorization subtleties.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences: the first conveys the essential output, the second gives the key parameter sourcing. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only tool with one required parameter, annotations covering idempotency and safety, and an output schema available, the description captures the core semantics and parameter provenance. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides zero description coverage for a single string parameter. The description compensates well by explaining ucid comes from list_cards(), giving the agent a concrete source for the required parameter. It could have also noted format or uniqueness, but for a technically simple parameter this is adequate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: it returns card limits for purchases and withdrawals, plus the amount already spent. This goes beyond the title and is easy to separate from sibling tools like card_operations or card_requisites.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It defines when this tool is relevant (checking card limits and spent amounts) and specifically instructs to take the ucid from list_cards(), which is valuable routing guidance. It does not explicitly exclude other card tools, but the context is clear enough.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.